Talk:Communications/State of the Wikimedia Foundation

Active discussions

Thank youEdit

Having read this, I now have a better sense of some of the challenges being faced by the WMF and our global communities, and a better idea of where the WMF wants to go. Risker (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't. On the bright side, it's not an "appendix" in the wrong namespace. --Nemo 23:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: Can you tell me what you would have liked to see? Katherine (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not my job to give a sense to WMF. But I'd like to see something that is not around 20 thousands words long, or that says something actually new.
Like the "appendix", this report seems merely a novelized description of the WMF org chart; which is ok, but can be done in less words. --Nemo 07:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: I'm not sure what the appendix is you're referring to. My ignorance, perhaps it was before my time? I ask what you would like because you're one of our stakeholders. If you choose to give feedback, I can try and incorporate it for the future. Without feedback, we're all just 'fumbling in the dark.' Katherine (WMF) (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's how to make it happenEdit

With respect to: "We need additional research with and into our current and future communities in order to formulate good hypotheses and make good decisions about engagement strategies."

I totally agree, it's nice to hear an echo of what I've been yammering for two years... In any event, here's how to start this process rolling. Every month on English Wikipedia, without fail, post a list of the "Top 5,000 Wikipedians by total edits in the previous month" in the same form as "List of Wikipedians by number of edits." Also include un-registered editors in that list, if an IP editor should crack the "Top 5,000." (See: )

That is ALL you have to do. Simple, huh? The first step to surveying the population of active volunteers is databasing. And the first need of those building databases is data. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Unintended positive consequence: people might start to work harder to "make" the list or improve their position on it. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@Carrite: I did not read the following, but was wondering if you had? BTW --Looks like this place is completely deserted, so I thought I would test to see if anyone at all still follows conversations here? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

A bit smartassy, but a real point nonethelessEdit

Re: "Created a long-term reserve fund to invest for long-term value through means such as stocks and bonds"

As a non-profit there is very little rationale for WMF to be investing in bonds, the principal advantages of which generally relate to tax avoidance. Buy some income real estate or something. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: All awareness efforts are borne by partner operators.Edit

Because of constraints in our trademark policy and historical resistance to marketing, all awareness efforts are borne by partner operators.

Not true. The biggest promotion effort, which probably amounted to a large portion of the total promotion, was performed by volunteer Iolanda Pensa with her team. Grants:IEG/What is about - C'est quoi. A series of communication tools about Wikipedia. Cameroon pilot project/Final. --Nemo 23:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: That's an amazing project, and one of my favorites. It's funny, lighthearted, and engaging. But as I said in my email announcing the report, this is only scoped as a reflection on actions and projects of the WMF, and not the work of the community. This sentence reflects that scoping: Zero partners currently work directly with the WMF. The partners promote, but the WMF does not. That does not preclude promotions efforts such as the excellent work of Iolanda Pensa. The purpose of this statement is to acknowledge the WMF may want to do more work with community members and/or partners to promote the projects. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't see how that's relevant. If you can only talk of WMF employees' actions, you shouldn't mention efforts by partner operators either. If you can mention one kind of partner (the operators), you can mention also another kind of partner (the volunteers, the users etc.).
It's very simple: replace "by partner operators" with "by others". --Nemo 06:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: I understand your critique, but I think we have to agree to disagree on the scoping. But thank you for the feedback! Katherine (WMF) (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia tenetsEdit

And you use specific links? Use language-neutral targets, or say "English Wikipedia". Thanks. --Nemo 23:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: This is a good catch, thank you. Will look into fixing now. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Implement the Wikimedia Foundation Call to Action 2015Edit

The task referenced against the 2015 Call to Action is currently blocked by 13 others: together these are the 14 tasks on the Phabricator WMF-Call-to-Action board. All are marked as Backlog. There are people alive today whose parents had not met when this task was opened. Perhaps a status update is in order. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

People, but not elephants! Nemo 08:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. An elephant, it is said, never forgets --I wonder whether the Call to Action has been forgotten? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Not forgotten. I created those tasks back in the day and as soon as there is an official answer about the Call to Action and those tasks, I will share it here unless someone beats me to it.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there an official answer yet? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Considering that of the 13 blockers, 10 are still outstanding and all are marked as assigned to "none", I think we can safely say that there will be no further progress explicitly made against the Call to Action, even if some of the points are rolled over into other initiatives such as the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2016-2017/draft. I doubt that we will ever receive any official answer, as suggested back in February, since the only credible response would be that the Call has failed or been abandoned. This is a shame for the staff members who spent time and effort on organising the Call, the volunteers who commented and contributed, the community members who had looked to it to resolve some of the issues between the community and the Foundation, and of course the donors whose contributions are paying the bills. Unfortunately this is not the first time that the WMF has started off an initiative which has somehow run into the sand after some initial enthusiasm. I do hope that someone is in charge of learning the lessons of failed initiatives like this one. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I see that the task under discussion, phab:T98348, and its depedencies were all closed three weeks after my last request for an official answer. Unfortunately it seems that it was not possible for the closer to take a moment to mention that fact here. However, at least that close brings us some kind of closure. I repeat my comments of 9th April. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


Unless there are good reasons to regard any part of this page as current, I propose to mark it as {{historical}} shortly. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Return to "Communications/State of the Wikimedia Foundation" page.